Exercise and Elections

I was going to write a blog about my new exercise regimen — How I’m running three days a week and doing massive amounts and pushups and crunches to try to tone up and burn off my hibernation fat. Plus, at some point, I’d like to be able to take off my shirt while playing guitar so I don’t overheat so much.

Instead, I think I want to talk about this primary election. I seem to have my best ideas talking with my wife. She’s an awesome lady, a very patient listener (unlike me) and if she doesn’t understand something she asks questions.

I’ve been reading some stuff about how Hilary might sue the Texas Caucus for something or other. Now, I’m not real sure what the specifics are, but from what I’ve read she’s campaigning under the same rules that her husband did when he won back in the ’90s. This winning at all costs thing scares me.

The purpose of the primary, as I understand it, is for the party to select a candidate to run for president. Each state party determines their own rules for the primary. Many state parties have open elections, realizing that the best chance for their candidate to win is one chosen initially by the people. Their are also caucuses which are often open only to party members. This makes sense to me, too, since the party members conceivably will be doing a lot of the grunt work.

There are certain rules in place, and certain bending of rules is expecting. But what Hilary is doing is sort of nutty. She wants to seat the delegates from Michigan and Florida now the chips are down. No other candidates were even on the ballot. She disregarded the rules and left her name on the ballot and now wants to be rewarded for it.

Also, in Texas, she’s about ready to file a law suit for whatever. Again, going the sneaky way, rather than abiding by the will of the people.

And I guess that’s what it comes down for me: she looks like another Bush. Rather than respect the will of the electorate, she wants to circumvent the process and install her own regime.

Lady: the people have been given a choice. They are informed. They realize what you and Obama have to offer and they are not choosing you. I’m sorry. This sucks. You were supposed to get the presidency, but it’s eluding you. Please respect the process.

I’m angry at Bush because he disregards the balance of power in government, makes too many executive decisions, and disregards the will of the people. Sure, democracy can be scary, especially when it seems like most people outside your monkeysphere are idiots, but them are the breaks, kid. We gots to work together, right?

Right?

Ugh. Sigh.

Political Labels Part III

The notes that I took directly underneath the “pinnacle versus progress” had a little diagram. Bear with me while I try to explain it. I wrote four words: Liberal, Republican, Conservative, and Democrat. Connecting the words in a circle were four arrows. In the big empty space in the middle, I wrote Meaning.

The lecturer had started out his talk with an example of advertising in politics. Rather than advertising just now creeping into politics, that was always the purpose of advertising. The father of modern advertising was Sigmund Freud’s nephew. Now, I don’t believe in nepotism or even hereditary gifts (you know, that somehow the nephew was born with all of Freud’s knowledge), but the point made was that the nephew very well knew of his uncle’s legacy. The nephew (didn’t grab his name, too lazy to google) made no bones about using advertising for political purposes. His book on the subject was allegedly titled “Propaganda.” That was before the word got such a negative connotation. Anyway, this was in the early twenties.

What I’ve noticed since that time, is that politcal movements are increasingly advertising oriented. One of the main concepts of advertising, as I understand it, is to sell something to someone that they don’t really need. The most effective way to do this is through branding. Advertising spends billions of dollars getting us to associate certain brands with certain experiences. Likewise, in politics, advertising brands politicians (and oh how I sometimes wish it was with a cattle brand) as representing this or that. In Montana, politicians always represent Montana values, while never really explaining what those values are. We saw branding in the last senate election when Jon Tester was shown holding a hunting rifle on his ranch when he apparently had not had a hunting permit for a number of years. However, a good advertising campaign (campaign — such a war-like word except the war is for your brand loyalty and association) will convince us, usually psychological techniques that anything can represent anything else.

Now, let’s take a little side trip. I’ve recently become interested in tribalism. No, not those tattoos or even Native Americans, but humans tendency to form little tribes, clans, or BFFs. We congregate with our sports teams, represent our local city or state, or defend someone’s musical selection as long as it matches our own. Tribalism, I believe, held an important key to Homo Sapien Sapien’s survival into the modern era. Humans want to engage in tight-knit groups. It’s only since the French Revolution that we’ve really stepped up nationalism. Before then, we didn’t really identify with a such a huge political entity as an entire country. So, it sort of makes no sense to only have two political parties represent a country that about as large than all of Europe.

Though, as many in the blogosphere know, we don’t have two politcal parties. I would argue that we actually have sort of a paradox. We have both numerous political parties and only one political party.

Numerous political parties: Each region has its own interpretation of the main political party. That’s how we can have a Democratic Governor in Montana and a Republican Governor in Massachusetts. Each region dictates its own interpretation of the political party.

One political party: Taking a far enough step back, you see both political parties saying essentially the same things while only changing the labels. Plus they flip-flop whenever political advantage might be had. Many of the same corporations are the top donors to both parties. Both parties are run from the top down with political consultants running from party to party, paycheck to paycheck, indifferent to any classical merit of the party.

That’s what I think my diagram was portraying: the one party system that seems to dance around meaning. The advertisers have gotten so good at building political brands that for a large swath of Americans, it doesn’t matter what their candidate actually does or says. A recent study showed that many ardent Bush supporters believed that Bush approved and was implementing the Kyoto Accord. Both political parties flip-flop their traditional stance every few years or even every few months.

But with humans tendency and needfor tribes, how does this actually translate for us? We pick a side and then we fight the other person. We subscribe to our media outlets. We support each other in branding the “enemy.” We believe that “God” or “Reason” or “Over-arching philosophical system” is on our side and the enemy is crazy, stupid, or heretical. We get caught up in this race, this dance to catch the enemy’s tail that we don’t even notice that a giant void opened in the middle, the void of “meaning.” (“Meaning” meaning actually agreeing that certain words mean certain things or that things should get done that help us rather than harm us.)

I don’t know how true this trilogy of tripe actually is, but it sort of makes sense to me. With all this partison bickering us constituents engage in, both politcal parties are accepting huge checks from most of the same corporations. And while the public continues to get this shaft in regards to education, transportation, prisons, health care, and trade, Corporations get NAFTA and a nice big war.

Should have known…

My wife works around televisions and said that all the news channels were blaring such breaking news as whether or not Anna Nicole Smith died in a cloud of scandal. Because, as we all know, if Anna Nicole Smith ODed then that threatens the fabric of our democracy. She was such an icon, such a skank, such a cockpole that three men admitted to being her child’s father.

My wife came home and told me that she thought something was going on. She even ranted to her mother that something important was happening or else the networks wouldn’t be focusing that much attention on a stupid blond.

Was she ever right. Yesterday, the Inspector General (sounds like something out of Les Miserables) determined that the “Pentagon manipulated pre-war intelligence.” Basically, the secondary reason we went to war, you know the reason directly after WMDs and right before it morphed into saving the world for “democracy” was Iraq’s alleged link to Al Qaeda.

Even the Misssoulian has noticibly neglected to mention anything about this. I guess they must be afraid to lose their valued Bitterroot subscribers.

If the executive branch uses false information to come to false conclusions to fight a phony war then I believe that constitutes a breach of national security and a treasonous activity. Engaging in phony wars should not be an excuse for executive immunity. Two more years is too long.

Neo-con Lexicon

Just for reference sake:

“Decision-maker” = “Dictator”

I Just Had to Steal This Too…

I saw this linked over a 4&20 Blackbirds and had to share the fun.